--- Begin Message ---
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
- Cc: dj at redhat dot com, neroden at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 30 Mar 2005 14:32:49 -0300
- Subject: Re: build machinery review request
- Organization: Red Hat Global Engineering Services Compiler Team
- References: <20050330061957.GT14407@bubble.modra.org>
- Xref: livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br redhat.outgoing:18217
On Mar 30, 2005, Alan Modra <amodra@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Would one of you please review
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01280.html ?
I don't have any problem with it, and it feels to me like all it takes
is approval from a port maintainer, since the configury bits specific
to a port are regarded as falling under the port maintainer's
umbrella.
But if you feel you need an ok from a configury maintainer, you got it
:-)
One concern: the overloading of --enable-targets. It does serve a
quite similar purpose for binutils, indeed, but I fear that, since the
set of options they accept may differ, one might get in trouble should
it be necessary to pass different flags to bfd's and gcc's
enable-targets. Sure one can always build them separately, but...
Have you considered something like say powerpc3264-linux, or
powerpc32bi-linux instead?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
--- End Message ---